Jeuraud

And I think that the OPs idea would make what I agree was a waste of Dev time, and IMO detrimental to CoH, no longer a waste of Dev time. The AE building would be the place you build these missions, and could be like the Kiosk of SWG; you go in, find an interesting mission/arc, and then go find the Contact for that mission/arc. You could be on a Blue-side AE Kiosk and see an interesting mission/arc that is over on the Red-side, and choose to go Red-side for just that mission/arc.

I like this idea, and you can make it so that you can only do the same Contact once in a 24hr period, unless the Contact has an Arc. I don't really care if someone PLs themselves, but make it so they have to work at it at least. Being able to go from 1 to 50 in the same building is just wrong.

The CoH Devs built the original ATs on the assumption that everybody would group... after all it's a MMO... and then found out pretty much from release that many of us did not want to group, or did limited grouping. The only AT that wasn't a pain in the butt to solo was the Scrapper. We were a big enough group (Or loud enough.), that the Devs had to improve the ATs abilities to Solo. They did this through some tweaks and Inherants, but refused to touch Support, because Support was supposed to support the group, if you wanted support then you should group. The idea that you had Super Powers that could aid your allies but not yourself is ludicrous, and to be frank I think this was a Jack E thing, and IMO fixing this is long over due. I Vote Yes

You know what does not happen in Gw2... Conversations. If you group formally at all, you just run from one event to another. Taking a Knee in CoH is not the 5min of EQ but it's still downtime, and conversations, even in PUGs do happen, or used to anyways. Even though I Solo now 99.9% of the time, and this suggestion would greatly benefit me, I Vote No, because I do not want CoH to turn into Gw2.

Why "should" there be a continual improvement to CoHH? Why "should" the CoHH Devs spend their time on CoHH? That they do, and that there is a Suggestion Forum where we can provide input and the CoHH Devs provide feedback, is fucking fantastic, but there is no reason for a "should". CoHH is not a product you purchased with the expectations of improvements over time. CoHH is a free download that cost you absolutely nothing to play. First, there is a difference between a Need and a Want, and I would say that none of the Defensive sets "Need" improvement. Second, just because you see something as an improvement, does not make it so. Your opinion that SD's AD needs to be turned into a Toggle is just that, an opinion, not a fact, and is no more valid than my opinion that SD's AD should remain as is.

Synergy also increases Boxing's Stun and Kick's Knockdown %, and gives them Endurance and Recovery Debuffs. Synergy gives Crosspunch a To-hit and a Global Recharge Buff. Maybe Tough and Weave need to be tweaked so that they are buffed by Synergy as well?

Your another Tank proponent who thinks they are the only AT allowed to perform a specific role (Agro control through Taunt.), while every other role in CoH has multiple ATs that can fill those roles. Gods, the arrogance of some of you people.

So what... I can play a Stalker instead of a Scrapper, or I can play a Dominator instead of a Controller, or I can play a Corrupter instead of a Defender, or... I could continue on with more examples but I don't think it's needed. Also I can choose to play the opposite of these... you know a Controller instead of a Dominator, etc.. Why should there be changes made just because someone can play a different AT that fills the same function? Also I've read the OP a few times, and I have read every post in this thread, so being I'm a bit dense how about explaining why Tanks would need a Taunt increase, which is totally about keeping agro, if other ATs cannot pull agro from a good Tank. or Are you saying that the OPs Taunt changes are for the mediocre and bad Tanks, to give them an advantage over a IO'd 'for tanking' Brute?

Then there is no need for the OPs Taunt change.... period. If there is no need for the OPs Taunt change then what is the purpose of the Taunt change?

My first inclination was No... choice is good, but choice is not always good if your a NewB, so if this can be done then I say Yes to the OPs suggestion.

I thought Bodyguard was a 50% damage absorb as long as you had 2 or more pets. If you use this Pet Command like this it should keep resetting your T1s into Defense each time 1 is pressed, stopping their current action. If needed you could $$ to more power slots. As for the suggestion, I vote No.

Leo is talking about this So at least now we know where you are coming from... your an Elitist.

Dude, everything a CoHH Dev works on takes time, they just don't happen by Fucking Magic. The time spent on your want is time not spent on my want, that is fucking real world. This means I have the right to voice my opinion on every suggestion made... if I fucking choose to. My opinion is that Tanks and Brutes are working as intended by the CoHV Devs, which includes IOs, because IO's did not just appear in CoH by FM. My opinion is that Brutes who IO themselves to Tank levels are just as much a tank as Tanks are. My opinion is that a Tank has no more right to tank than a Brute does. My opinion is that your suggestion does nothing more than turn those Brutes who IO themselves up to Tank level into the second class Tanks, that in my opinion, you think they are. Now it's up to the CoHH Devs to decide whether your opinion or my opinion is more valid for Tanks and Brutes.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm saying to get the Tank your nostalgia created (Wherever that came from.), you need CoH to be a Trinity, because with CC and Support in CoH the Tank is not needed. Many of us keep saying it and it keeps getting ignored, but the conundrum of the CoH Tank did not start with Brutes and IOs. Hells, I would be surprised if the Tank did not have issues in CoH beta, and should not have been released. I do know that Fury was talked about in the Forums as something to add to Tanks, and was instead added to the villian side tank. You know what the no-brainer for me is.... that Tanks are fricken boring to play, and Gauntlet and Bruising did not change that, and your change will not change that either. Your tweaks might change the minds of the Min/Maxers, and that's about it. I'm playing a fricken game for fun, and if I'm not having fun then I'm not going to waste my time. I have two dogs in this fight. 1. I'm an Altaholic, making Tank interesting/fun would add to my options. 2. Everything a CoHH Dev works on means there is something else they are not working on. You need to get over this "you do not have a dog in this fight" attitude.

Because the Conundrum is no more a Tank/Brute issue than it was a Tank/Scrapper issue. The Conundrum is that the CoH Tank is not a Trinity Tank not because it cant do this because it can, but because the rest of the CoH ATs do not need the CoH Tank to do this, unlike the Trinity MMOs. You are trying to get the feel of a Trinity Tank in a non-Trinity MMO, and your change will no more give you that than Gauntlet and Bruising did. The only way to give you the feel of a Trinity Tank in CoH is to turn CoH into a Trinity MMO, and that is the dog I have in this fight. I don't see it likely happening, especially in CoHH, but if I don't state that I want nothing to do with a CoH Trinity, then I have no one to blame but myself if somehow it happened. I'm all for tweaking the Tank to make it more fun or interesting to play.

In EQ and DAoC, Runners would often lead to group wipes or Trains to the Zone. In CoH it's just a nuisance. Are they a Runner or are the playing Tactically, because they cant hurt your 45% Def butt, and they are not programed to just stand there and take your damage like in some MMOs. I haven't looked at Blasters, in well years, but isn't there a Single Target Imob in every set? Runners in CoH serve no tactical purpose. All they do is reduce XP which served a purpose for the company that was trying to get you to put out 15 bucks a month.

1 "+down$$powexec_name Apprentice Charm$$powexec_name Brawl" activates and ques up Brawl Just for why not 1 "+down$$powexec_name Apprentice Charm$$+up$$powexec_name Brawl" Put me on the bounce and activates and ques up Brawl. 1 "powexec_toggleon Apprentice Charm$$powexec_toggleon Brawl" activates Brawl Just to verify 1 "powexec_toggleon Brawl$$powexec_toggleon Apprentice Charm" Activates Apprentice Charm, though once it activated Brawl as well, but could not duplicate. I read this, from Profit's Link and tried it again, with a Double-tap. Most of the time I could get it to work with one Double-tap, but if I tried to go back to back Double-tap, it just activates or ques up Apprentice Charm even though Brawl is available. It will not do what the OP is asking for. Though this was fun to mess with it still does not do a If-Then-Else.

I knew what you meant but it does not work. With ++ it just activates the last power. I even cut and pasted from this 1 "+$$powexec_name Brawl$$powexec_name Apprentice Charm" to this 1 "+$$powexec_name Apprentice Charm$$powexec_name Brawl" just to verify that I had not somehow screwed up the Brawl execute. In the first one it activated Apprentice Charm, and then ques Apprentice Charm. And in the second one it activated Brawl, and then ques Brawl. All the + does is que up the same power that was activated in the line, not all that useful. And of course all of this still does not do a If-Then-Else.

This bind does not activate two powers. It activate the last power, and then ques the last power... sometimes. As for more Macro/Bind freedom, I used to play SWG, and worked swingshift at the time, and would see AFK characters that would activate when a MOB attacked them (I so wanted to Train these characters.), or would be Dancing/Music training in the Cantinas, while the player was asleep, so I know why the CoH Devs wanted to limit Macros/Binds. This would require an If-Then-Else statement. Would it be so bad to be able to do this with each key, as long as it required a key-press to activate?

For the people who know about and can afford to do this. Dude are you for or against Rage, because by posting the above you have quantified just how broken Rage is. As for me... like fuck is a 10sec Debuff fair for the extra 110 seconds of 40/160 "badassness" you can get from Rage (Not to mention however many seconds you get of 60/240.). The 10sec Debuff was supposed to be the cost of having a perma ToHit/Damage Buff. As for a fix for what is obviously a broken power, I think there should be an End Crash. It's thematic to Rage, and a perma ToHit/Damage Buff should have some cost to it, other than forgetting to reapply it.

and 2 stacks of Rage would be +40 to hit, +160 damage. and 3 stacks of Rage would be +60 to hit, +240 damage. Or are you telling me that Rage does not stack with itself, which would go against what I've been reading in this thread.

I just looked at SS's numbers in-game and I noticed all the knockback except Hurl was at .67, and Hurl is an 80ft Ranged attack that can knock down flyers. Something else I noticed in the set was a Knockup/Hold, a PBAoE Stun, and a PBAoE 80% Knockdown, in fact I noticed that all of the attacks have some type of CC in them. SS is a fricken Melee Control set, which I see as part of the problem. Control means forethought and finesse, while Super Strength makes me think Hulk Smash. Even Rage is a forethought and finesse power. I think the numbers are fine for a Control set, unfortunately this set is called Super Strength. As for Rage, I've looked at the numbers, and see nothing to justify a +40/160 Buff that last longer then 10sec, let alone a +60/240 Buff, even with the 10sec Debuff (Really.... 20 pages for a 10sec Debuff.). Asking for a Rage "Fix" is asking for this set to be looked at and tweaked in ways that many of you do not want it tweaked. If I cared about SS I would be presenting some numbers that supported my argument, or I would be shutting the fuck up.

As a Tabletop GM/DM I often give extra XP for Roleplaying, but for me Roleplaying does not mean BSing with your buds about what happened in the mundane world, which is what often happens in the Tabletop games. As a GM/DM I can bring my players back into the game world, but how is CoHH supposed to do that. Just because you have a Roleplaying tag on does not mean you are not using CoH as a visual social media, instead of Roleplaying a Sup doing Sup World, non-mission things. I have no issue with people using CoH as a visual social media, but they should not get XP for it. What I could see XP for, is participating in a Costume Contest, or being in a Dance Off in Pocket D, or partying with an NPC of the opposite faction, or setting up a future job (Including talking with Contacts.), or hells, getting thrown out of Pocket D for fighting. Something active.

I would play this AT, and I kind-of already do, with a 2 Pet Beast MM for Bodyguard and the Fighting pool. I used to do the same thing with MM Thugs, because I wanted Pistols, and switched to Corrupter as soon as they got DP. After playing around with MMs I would prefer an Assault primary, I'm liking having at least one fast attack ranged power, and Sorceries attack is to long. It's Attack is a Primary which is going to put it above the Tank to start with. It also has a Support secondary, which is going to give Buffs/Debuffs. The only reason it would be slower than the Tank is because it was given a ridiculously low damage modifier, kind of like the MM. I would prefer an AT that is designed to do what I'm kind-of already doing.

The OP did not ask for advice; they asked for a specific change to the post 50 game for some of their characters, not all of them. The OP is not a NewB, you can tell that from reading their post. Their request is no different than the XP Shut Off that you oh so sweetly told them to use; note, not told them about, but told them to use, something I'm pretty sure they already new about. The XP Shut Off was not part of the game until someone requested it, in the "Suggestion Forum". Personally I do not consider the CoHH Suggestion Forum to be a safe place to make suggestions, it's way to easy to Troll suggestions. I also felt the same about the CoHV Suggestion Forum. Just to reiterate, I'm for the OPs request.